Worst Commanders in History

[Palnatoke]

Future Tank

You are right that Stalin did not prosecute officiers because they were skilled. In fact I think it's quite precise to say that the majority of the, say, 32 million victims of Stalin and Lenin weren't singled out because they, in any way , could threathen the regime.I think it's not wrong to say that in the case of the latter prosecutions/killings, the chief reason was because the regime was suspect of the motives of it's victims. Stalin was suspecious of the officers as a "class" and hence he ordered the elimination of, I can't remember whether it was 30k or 60k of them. And ofcourse when you in that way bleed the brain of the army, you end up with an army that can't fight very well.

It is important for me to underline that the prosecution of the russian officers, in all it's crotesque stupidity and inhumanity, in no way is a remarkable event in Stalin/Lenin's Russia. F.ex, NKVD eliminated more than a million people by head shoot in that peiode - think about that, no machines, no gaschambers just hard manual labour....

 

[Duffy]

How about American General John Pershing

Who sent hundred to there death and thousands more injured before the Armistice of WW1 came into affect. Because he didn’t believe in it and felt Germany was getting off to easily.

 

[riksavage]

I read a very insightful anecdote by a WWI British Officer assigned to pass on 'lessons learnt' to an American unit. Following the exercise the US Commander thanked his British counterpart politely and said he planned to do it his way because you lot had failed since 1914. The Brit chap then watched the US unit charge against the enemy 1914 style witnessing there almost total destruction.

 

[JoMaar]

Napoleon Bonaparte

He was a real fool, you know. While he won wars over 5 of 7 coalitions assembled against him, he was 1,000% confident that Russia would be eliminated in only a single, swift and huge campaign. He should have only used few men into Russia, and bring with him the Imperial Guard, and Kutusov would be tempted to fight him.

It was the opposite. Aside from being a short, vain son of a bitch, he also lacked the balls to face a resourceful enemy. He brought with him 800k soldiers without his precious Imperial Guard, despite knowing the fact that he always won battles with his Guard saving those days around. What a complete fool! :

 

[Alex_David]

He was a real fool, you know. While he won wars over 5 of 7 coalitions assembled against him, he was 1,000% confident that Russia would be eliminated in only a single, swift and huge campaign. He should have only used few men into Russia, and bring with him the Imperial Guard, and Kutusov would be tempted to fight him.

It was the opposite. Aside from being a short, vain son of a bitch, he also lacked the balls to face a resourceful enemy. He brought with him 800k soldiers without his precious Imperial Guard, despite knowing the fact that he always won battles with his Guard saving those days around. What a complete fool! :

All commanders have their blunders, or at least most of them. This isn't that surprising

 

[Lindermyer]

[COLOR="blue"]As others pointed out you have trotted out the 1930s revision and blackadder school of history. Sadly the history we are all rather simplistically taught at school and we all believed (myself included) however the truth is more complex and Haig did the best he could in a type of war nobody expected, nobody was equipped for and nobody trained for.
Yes Haig and others made mistakes, but usually not twice. I often feel Haig is the most maligned man in History

Below I have challenged each of youre statements regarding haig and tactics etc. I am not a very good writer so if my reply seems condescending or patronising firstly I apologise and secondly please look past that.[/COLOR]

Just realised that although the last post is a week ago, the post im replying to is 4 years old, my apologies for the subject necromancy.

Montgomery's probably up there, but another one few people recognize is Earl Sir Douglas Haig. During the Great War he wanted to show the Germans the discipline and order of the British Empire, so he told his troops to advance in formation, marching speed into German machine gun fire and artillery shelling.

Not true in 1914 the british army used fire and manouver in 1917 the british army used fire and manouver, in 1918 the british army was probably the most effective and tactically astute on the western front.
Incidently the US in 1918 repeated the british mistakes of 1916.

No why did they advance in line in 1916 - because the british army had vastly increased in size and was largely untrained (the privates etc could do there jobs but training officers and NCOs takes time.
Haig did not want to attack in 1916, he knew his army need time. the decision to attack was political.


He also declared that the tank could never replace the cavalry charge


Haig was an advocate for the Tank and pushed for its introduction as well as a few other ideas in hopes of breaking the deadlock
i cannot say whether Haig did or did not utter the line but possibly such a remark was taken out of context perhaps a reference to the poor speed and reliability.

and as such ordered many cavalry charges into enemy lines.

[COLOR="blue"]Not true at all British cavalry having learnt lessons in the Boer war acted as mounted infantry ie the horses were basically transports. they still carried lances simply because if they bumped into the enemy on horseback at close range ther rifles would not be useful.French and german cavalry did however charge infantry ala waterloo the Germans learnt not to The French cavalry didn't. Not sure Haig can be held responsible for this[/COLOR]

Of course, while his men were dying by the thousands or generally suffering in the trenches, he was in a cozy pavilion drinking tea 15 miles from the trench line.

Obviously Haig was not in the front line during battles his job was to command he needed communications facilities and to be easily found by runners/ messangers.
that said haig did visit the trenches and several divisional generals were killed in action.
. In fact, he was so ignorant of what was happening that when he visited the trenches and saw no-man's land, he remarked, "My god, did we really send our boys into that

The quote is attributed to an unkown staff officer not Haig it is also not known if its true.
However the quote in question refers to 1917 and pachendale (spelling) an offensive that was successful at first but later turned into a bloody slog and nightmare especially once the weather changed.

It is entirely true that the attacks carried on long after the offensive should have been stopped. The reason it wasn't is because the French army had collapsed so the british had to keep pressure on the Germans to stop them attacking the French, which could have led to the loss of the war.


!" During his command, hundreds of thousands of British soldiers died.

True however so did millions of French and Germans not sure what your point is there.

Haig was hated by Lloyd George, had Haig been the incompetent dunder head and dolt he was turned into in the 1930s thanks to Lloyd George and others, he would have been sacked during the war.

History is being revisited and many historians are challenging the myths of ww1.